View Full Version : VR woes
07-20-2002, 09:26 PM
Why are the scaled scores for the VR section so rediculous. I do all of these practice tests and get scores of 42/45 or 61/65 and still get an estimated scaled score of 10 at the highest. Is this just a product of the tests that I take or will this be the case on the actual MCAT?
07-21-2002, 08:02 AM
I don't know whose tests you're taking, but your score for the real MCAT depends on relativity--how you do compared to the others around you writing the same VR section. There are a lot of factors that come up on test day too that are difficult to control for during practice, e.g., nerves, climate of the room, the perpetu-sniffling neighbour... Therefore, overall, there's no simple conversion scale available that will accurately reflect your raw scores from practice tests to those of the big day.
Although it can be tough to try to gauge your progress as you practice, as long as you're challenging yourself with average to tough VR tests, using a set of strategies that get you through the whole section with relatively high accuracy and low stress, and within the 85 minutes, then you're probably on the right track to a decent score.
10 is all you need for the Ontario schools.
I think a 61/65 on a reputable testing agency (Kaplan, Pricetone review or even right from AAMC) is GREAT. I was no where near that mark (I think I was getting 52/65) and when I wrote the MCAT I got a 10. I'm sure you will receive double digits and my guess, probably on the high end.
Great job and keep up the good work. Best of luck on test day.
07-21-2002, 02:02 PM
As V said, the tests from Kaplan, TPR, and (especially) AAMC practice tests IV/V/VI should be a good gauge of where you stand. Don't worry about your raw score, because the tests aren't all of the same difficulty, and so are scaled differently. On some easier tests a 61 out of 65 would be required to get a 10, but on the real thing it's probably more like 50-52. I think a 52 was enough for a 10 on AAMC V, which is reasonably representative of the real test.
07-21-2002, 02:02 PM
An important tidbit for those practicing for the MCAT, which you may have read elsewhere around here: not all full-length MCAT exams are created equally. The VR sections from the Kaplan course practice exams from a couple of years ago were a lot easier than the real thing and many people were scoring very well (12s, etc) on Kaplan VR sections at the time. (Granted, Kaplan may have increased the level of difficulty of their materials since then.) Also, beware of the early (pre-test V) AAMC MCAT exams--same deal re: levels of difficulty. If you can, try to pick up copies of AAMC V and VI, which may help to give you a much more realistic picture of the level of difficulty from the past few years' MCAT exams.
Hopefully though, the exams that you're practicing on are some of the more challenging ones and that you're well on your way to stardom re: this August's VR.
Cheers and good luck,
07-31-2002, 09:18 AM
What do you think of TPR's verbal relative to AAMC?
07-31-2002, 09:59 AM
Personally, I find the Princeton Review's verbal sections to be very similar to, if not a little more challenging than, the level of difficulty found in the AAMC V and real MCAT VR sections.
07-31-2002, 02:27 PM
I agree with kirsteen on her evaluation. TPR passages tend to be a little more difficult and at time more ambiguous (if possible) :) than the actual MCAT. I especially found the VR sections of their Practice Tests A-D to be much harder than the actual exam. Personally i found AAMC V to be the most representative of the actual exam and I would assume that AAMC VI is likely rather good as well.
PS. Best of luck Kirsteen... you've got many people from this board on your team!!!
07-31-2002, 03:49 PM
How do the Kaplan VR sections stack up to the real MCAT? How about the Kaplan BS and PS sections?
07-31-2002, 04:37 PM
First off, thanks for the support medicator007--your words are muchly appreciated.
Second, I'd like to better answer your question paublo, but I took the Kaplan course a couple of years back and fear that their materials now may be a little different from those from which I studied. Is there anyone around who has some experience with the Kaplan course in the past year or so and can comment on the relative level of difficulty? A couple of years ago I found their material to be a bit short of the level of difficulty on the real thing (except for the real MCAT PS section, which chronically seems to include weirdly straightforward physics passages). I'd like to hear how, if at all, Kaplan may have modified their materials to perhaps better match the level of difficulty of the current exam.
As to the BS section on the more recent exams, the biology-specific passages, i.e., the non-orgoes, seem to have been commonly reviewed as having become a little more challenging. It seems to be more common for bio passages to be filled with thought-provoking experiments and scenarios as opposed to the more straightforward, regurgitative-type questions more regularly found in the aforementioned physics passages. Also, last year, within the bio passages appeared one covering prions which looked and read remarkably like a VR passage.
Those AAMC folk cannot be chided for doing the same old thing year after year, that's for sure.
vBulletin® v3.6.5, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.